Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Questions for the self-proclaimed "more knowledgeable one", Hank Sienzant: Question # 18
23 views
Skip to first unread message
Gil Jesus
Oct 26, 2023, 4:40:29 AM10/26/23
to
There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable"
one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my questions.
Why were Elm St. witnesses Charles Brehm and Bill Newman, who were among the closest witnesses to the limo at the time of the shooting, never called before the Warren Commission ?
one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my questions.
Why were Elm St. witnesses Charles Brehm and Bill Newman, who were among the closest witnesses to the limo at the time of the shooting, never called before the Warren Commission ?
John Corbett
Oct 26, 2023, 7:55:13 AM10/26/23
to
and made a judgement call as to which witnesses had information to offer that would help
determine the facts of the case. Below is Bill Newman's affidavit. Tell us what he saw that
couldn't be determined from the Z-film. What did he have to add to the body of knowledge?
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/wnewman.htm
Ben Holmes
Oct 26, 2023, 9:18:36 AM10/26/23
to
On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 04:55:11 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
You merely agree with Gil that they weren't called - but can't explain
why not.
You have *NO* non-conspiratorial explanation for why certain witnesses
were not called.
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
why not.
You have *NO* non-conspiratorial explanation for why certain witnesses
were not called.
Bud
Oct 26, 2023, 5:58:25 PM10/26/23
to
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 4:40:29 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
Ben Holmes
Oct 27, 2023, 9:18:25 AM10/27/23
to
On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 14:58:23 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?
Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.
It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)
So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.
wrote:
So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?
Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.
It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)
So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.
0 new messages